G.R. No. 173802 April 7, 2014
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, BERNABE NOBLE, WILLIAM GAN, JULIO RODRIGUEZ, JR., SAMUEL LIM, SANDRA YAP NG, ALFONSO UY, and BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Respondents.

FACTS

On May 25, 1981, the National Housing Authority (NHA) filed an expropriation case against respondents-landowners (Bernabe Noble, et al.) over properties in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City, pursuant to LOI 555 and LOI 557. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 7847. The RTC issued a writ of possession, placing the properties under NHA’s control. Commissioners initially appraised the fair market value at ₱470.00 per square meter as of 1984. The RTC approved this valuation on April 5, 1990. The NHA appealed to the CA (CA-G.R. CV No. 33832), which remanded the case for further proceedings on just compensation. A new set of commissioners was appointed and pegged just compensation at ₱705.00 per square meter, considering the 1984 value and accumulated improvements. On August 3, 1998, the RTC issued an Order approving the ₱705.00 valuation. The NHA claimed it received a copy of this Order on March 3, 1999, and filed a Motion for Reconsideration on March 11, 1999. Respondents-landowners opposed, contending the registry return receipt showed NHA received the Order on November 10, 1998, making the motion belated. The RTC denied the NHA’s motion. The NHA appealed to the CA. The CA initially dismissed the appeal for failure to file the appellant’s brief on time but later granted reconsideration. Respondents-landowners then moved for reconsideration, arguing the appeal should be dismissed as the RTC Order had become final and executory due to NHA’s failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration. The CA, in a Resolution dated June 30, 2006, dismissed the appeal, holding the Assailed Order had become final and executory, as the registry return receipt indicated NHA received it on November 10, 1998, and the motion for reconsideration was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Assailed Order (RTC Order dated August 3, 1998) had already become final and executory.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Resolution. The Court held that the Assailed Order had become final and executory. The registry return receipt on record showed NHA received a copy on November 10, 1998, but it filed its motion for reconsideration only on March 11, 1999, which was beyond the 15-day reglementary period. The doctrine of immutability of judgment applies, rendering the order unalterable. The NHA’s contention that the receipt was invalid because it was received by a former employee, Atty. Epifanio P. Recafia, was untenable. Other than its bare assertions and a self-serving certification, NHA provided no sufficient proof to invalidate the service. The presumption of regularity accorded to the postal official’s entries in the registry return receipt stands. Consequently, the order had lapsed into finality and could no longer be subject to appellate review.